Opinion on UFC

[Tommy_P]

I have always believed that it's personal fighting preference and how well you train it that wins. For stand up fighters that don't want to go to ground they should train to "not" get taken down. Be better at their standup game than the other guy is at his ground or take down game.

Just like some of the best MMA guys out there are already doing.

Training to not be taken down is called wrestling. The "sprawl and brawl" style of fighting you see strikers like Chuck Liddell, Mirco Filopovic, Maurice Smith, and others use works because of their wrestling skill, particularly in sprawling. Liddell, for example, was a national level wrestler in college, yet he is billed as a "kickboxer." He uses his wrestling skill to allow him to keep the fight standing so he can use his strikes.

Also, MMAers these days train for all ranges of combat: free-moving/striking, clinch, and ground. Even those billed simply as "Muay thai" or "kickboxing" train in all these ranges in order to be able to defend themselves in all phases of combat.

Do you?

Yes I understand that but I'm addressing the fact that some of these guys ( and I see it quite often) are winning without any type of wrestling or grappling going on, purely on striking. Sure they probably know at least some of the skills needed just in case they are grabbed or taken down, but in these instances it seemed unnecessary and they're not having to use it. Chalk one up for the strikers. They used striking and went all the way.

That seems to be a contradiction to the argument put up by forum MMArtists selling ground fighting as the ultimate. It makes it seem that it's the ultimate against those who aren't doing it, but for the UFC guys who choose only to strike ...oh well for them it's ok.

Have you seen the UFC guy (forget his name) that specializes in the flying knee against the shooters? Seems he has developed a striking technique to work against the grappler trying to take him down.

My point again, it's all about being better at what "you" do, whatever that is, than your opponent is at what "he" does. Nothing at all wrong with being well rounded, but not always necessary.

These UFC fighters I am speaking of seem to enforce a contradiction to what I've been reading here and elsewhere is all I'm saying.

Tommy

[DokterVet]

In hundreds of fights I have watched, I have seen the knee vs. takedown defence work twice. I have seen sprawling work hundreds of times.

I disagree that grappling skill is not important. Sure, some fights end without a takedown attempt, but most don't. Especially not if your opponent knows you can't grapple.

Also, guys with superior grappling skill gain an advantage in striking range due to being able to strike without fear of the takedown. See: Vitor Belfort's punching fluries, Kazushi Sakuraba's high kicks and spinning back kicks, Randy Couture outstriking Liddell in their first match up.

Pure strikers have to be cautious and keep their weight under them out of fear of the takedown. That is not a concern for expert grapplers, and they can strike at will.

I'm not saying grappling is the only important skill; I'm saying you should train for all ranges of combat. But pure grappling will beat pure striking 9 times out of 10. NOBODY fights professional MMA now without training in all ranges, regardless of his specialty.

[cleung]

I would like to put a different angle on this whole thing. Effectiveness of ground fighting vs just stand up striking is one factor but another point that is important here, especially if the UFC wants to sell tickets, is what the audience wants to see. Would you all rather see fights that remaining mostly standing up or ones that end up in the ground for lengthy periods of time? I still recall watching one of the earlier UFCs where Shamrock had a rematch with Gracie and the fight ended up on the ground for something like 20 minutes or more. Now, everyone has their preferences in entertainment but for me, it was pretty boring to sit through those 20 minutes.

[UseoForce]

Cleung, that's entirely up to debate, and I personally want to see a ground fight.

BTW, the debate between traditional arts and MMA isn't so much about stand-up versus ground (stand-up arts like kickboxing and Muay Thai are certainly present in MMA, and grappling arts like JJJ and Chin-nar are not), but about theory vs. fact.

MMA fighters know that their techniques and strategies have a certain degree of effectiveness. They trade foul tactics (eye gouge, groin strike, throat strike etc.) for tried and true methods.

TMAs rely of theory of technical use. They cannot train all-out because of a heavy emphasis on foul tactics, which are hard to train safely. There is less certainty in their application of a technique. However, their techniques are more deadly, and a sure hit is likely to be debilitatiing.

It's a trade-off.

I side about 80% with the MMA guys, but this post is already really long so I won't go into detail.

[SubGrappler]

Yes I understand that but I'm addressing the fact that some of these guys ( and I see it quite often) are winning without any type of wrestling or grappling going on, purely on striking.

I'd like to know which fighters these are. I've never seen a striker win against a grappler with pure striking. Sometimes there are bouts in which the standup fight is mutual, in that both fighters prefer that phase of combat (i.e. Jens Pulver vs Takanori Gomi, Nick Diaz vs Robbie Lawler) but in the event that one of those standup fighters fought someone they knew had no ground experience, the intelligent ones would take them to the ground immediately. In other words, some fighters elect to keep the fight standing because they respect their opponents ground work, and the opposite is also true.

Sure they probably know at least some of the skills needed just in case they are grabbed or taken down, but in these instances it seemed unnecessary and they're not having to use it. Chalk one up for the strikers. They used striking and went all the way.

They used striking in conjunction with grappling training as well. Want to know why people like Liddel and Cro Cop are so vicious with their strikes? Because they know they have great takedown defense. Both know that they swing for the fences, so to speak, because if their opponent manages to evade and clinch (or shoot in) they've got exceptional skills from that position. In swinging for the KO, they open themselves up to a takedown much more so than if they fought conservatively. This is how an Olympic wrestler in Dan Henderson could be taken down by a BJJ fighter with average takedowns in Murillo Bustamante.

To further illustrate my point, look at K-1 fighters such as Peter Aerts, Stefan Leko, and Jerome LeBanner who have not shared the success that Cro Cop has in MMA. In my opinion, these kickboxers are better than Cro Cop (in K-1), but Cro Cop has adapted to the MMA game much better because of how well he picked up the sprawl and clinch work.

That seems to be a contradiction to the argument put up by forum MMArtists selling ground fighting as the ultimate. It makes it seem that it's the ultimate against those who aren't doing it, but for the UFC guys who choose only to strike ...oh well for them it's ok.

MMA fighters dont advocate ground fighting as being the ultimate form of fighting- MMA fighters cross train in all venues of fighting from striking, to clinch work, to ground grappling. The only reason why you see grappling brought up so often in these arguments is because ground fighting is easily the most neglected part of fighting in todays martial arts systems.

Have you seen the UFC guy (forget his name) that specializes in the flying knee against the shooters? Seems he has developed a striking technique to work against the grappler trying to take him down. .

There are many fighters that utilize the flying knee. Watch Alistair Overeem or Pele if you enjoy those.

My point again, it's all about being better at what "you" do, whatever that is, than your opponent is at what "he" does. Nothing at all wrong with being well rounded, but not always necessary.

These UFC fighters I am speaking of seem to enforce a contradiction to what I've been reading here and elsewhere is all I'm saying.

To be better at what you "do" is only going to help you if you can keep the fight in that phase. A perfect example goes all the way back to the original UFC's. Every fighter that Royce fought was better at what they "did" than Royce was at takedowns. Pat Smith, Gerard Gordeua, and Jason Delucia were much much better at striking than Royce was at takedowns- Royce's takedowns were absolutely atrocious then- he basically made every mistake you possibly could when attempting a double leg, but this worked for him, not because he was good at it, but because his opponents had never even practiced it before.

[TheAnimal]

UFC used to be better than it is now, the rules are getting dumb. Pride is better.

[BJJ is 1]

I would like to put a different angle on this whole thing. Effectiveness of ground fighting vs just stand up striking is one factor but another point that is important here, especially if the UFC wants to sell tickets, is what the audience wants to see. Would you all rather see fights that remaining mostly standing up or ones that end up in the ground for lengthy periods of time? I still recall watching one of the earlier UFCs where Shamrock had a rematch with Gracie and the fight ended up on the ground for something like 20 minutes or more. Now, everyone has their preferences in entertainment but for me, it was pretty boring to sit through those 20 minutes.

The ground matches that usualy end up boring are the ones wher a striker with little ground game get taken down(usualy in guard) and lay & pray or hold on for dear life untill the ref stands them up. Even if the have wrestling experiance that probably wont have the skills from their back that they need to sweep/submit an opponent. However if you get a ground match involving 2 grapplers like Nick Diaz vs. Karo Perisian it will usualy be exciting because both fighters have the skills needed to defeat the othe on the ground

[UseoForce]

Or Diego vs. Nick Diez (sp?)

[BJJ is 1]

Or Diego vs. Nick Diez (sp?)

Also a good ground fight

[Tommy_P]

I don't mind a good ground fight although I prefer to watch more of the standup. A good mix is good but I still prefer to see the grappling or wrestling done standing. Use of the hands, feet, knees and elbows, a takedown attempt by clinching on the fence and then a counter to that and a continuance of the standup.

The reason is that IMO it makes it more realistic. I know this whole thing comes down to the argument that "fights end up on the ground". On this point I can't listen to those who have never been in a "real" fight. Nor can I listen to those who have trained extensively in MMA or BJJ but also have never been in a real fight on the street. In my experience a real fight "often" goes to the ground but not always. When doesn't it go to ground? When one of the fighters knows what he is doing or is naturally a good scrapper. When does it go to ground? When both parties are at a loss for what to do and so swing for the fences and then rush and tackle because they don't know what to do next, then a wrestling match begins and it's the "stronger" (or sometimes the luckier) that ends up on top. This is barring any accidental ways of hitting the ground like tripping or something. I've been involved in many (real) fights and have seen countless others that have not gone to ground. Attempts may have been made, sure, but the dominant fighter didn't allow it.

You have to be well rounded no doubt but just enough to thwart the attempted, and in the street unskilled and half baked, takedown attempt. The chances of meeting a skilled grappler/BJJ/MMA in a street fight or ripping you off for your wallet or carjacking you are slim.

Now back to the matches on TV. Based on what I've said above about fights going to ground, on TV they mostly go to ground because they want it to. It's a sport and that's the premise, they pretty much have to take it there.

I watched a fight the other night where a fighter was knocked down by the use of hands and feet twice. Both times, the fighter standing actually went down after the downed fighter purposely to try and finish him on the ground. Come on now, sport, sport, sport! In a real fight either you kick his head in or use the opportunity to run. You don't go down to the floor of your own free will.

IMO that's where this whole thing becomes a little unrealistic and that's where I say a real fight would be a little different. As much as I love MMA and as much as I think those guys are incredible and that the art is great, I do think it's a little skewed and the rules or the way the fights are pushed for entertainment are funneling the whole thing to end on the ground. It's becoming a little unbalanced.

Tommy